Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi (1995)

A Commentary

David L. Petersen

• Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press
• Year: 1995
• Print ISBN:
  9780664226442
• eBook ISBN:
  9781611645156
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

This volume in the Old Testament Library series focuses on Zechariah and Malachi.

The Old Testament Library provides fresh and authoritative treatments of important aspects of Old Testament study through commentaries and general surveys. The contributors are scholars of international standing.

MALACHI
THE THIRD “ORACLE

Malachi 1:1

Introduction

1:1 An oracle, the word of Yahweh to Israel, through his messenger.^a

a. Virtually all recent English translations render MT mal’ākî as a proper name, “Malachi” (so RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, NEB, REB, NAB, GNB, JPS). For a defense of such a construal, see Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1972, 211–12; Rudolph, Haggai-Sacharja 1–8/9–14—Maleachi, 1976, 247–48; Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 154–56; and Glazier-McDonald, Malachi: The Divine Messenger, 1987, 27–29. However, a number of scholars have expressed dissatisfaction with such a view, e.g., Mason, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1977, 139, and G. Botterweck, “Jakob habe ich lieb—Esau hasse ich,” BibLeb 1 (1960): 28–29. R. Veuilleumier, Aggée, Zacharie, Malachie, CAT XIc, Neuchâtel, 1981, 223–24, follows LXX and translates “of his messenger,” which he deems the original text. LXX reads en cheiri aggelou autou, “at/by the hand of his messenger,” which apparently presupposes a Hebrew form mal’ākô. LXX seems to attest the original form of the superscription. It fits better with the third-person discourse of the booklet’s introduction, whereas MT is, in all likelihood, a form influenced by mal’ākî, which is found in Mal. 3:1.

At the end of the verse, LXX continues with thesthe dē epi tas kardias hymōn, “Lay it, I pray, to heart,” a clause that has almost certainly been inserted on the basis of similar language in LXX of Hag. 2:16, 19.

[1–1] As was the case with Zech. 9:1 and 12:1, the word maśśā’, “oracle,” is followed immediately by the phrase “the word of Yahweh.” Next, the aforementioned texts designate a nation: in Zech. 9:1, “against the land of Hadrak,” in Zech. 12:1, “concerning Israel.” Similarly, Mal. 1:1 names Israel. However, the preposition connecting the oracle to the nation is ’el, “to,” rather than ‘al, “concerning,” as it was in Zech. 12:1. If I am correct in understanding Malachi as the third in a series of deuteroprophetic collections, the sequence of prepositions relating these collections to various nations or territories is especially significant: b—against a foreign nation (Zech. 9:1), ‘al—concerning Israel (Zech. 12:1), and ’el to Israel (Mal. 1:1). These introductions make up a sequence rather like that attested in other prophetic books, oracles against nations, oracles against Israel, oracles on behalf of Israel (e.g., the primary sequence in Amos and the Septuagint of Jeremiah). As one moves through the three maś’ôt, the discourse has shifted one hundred and eighty degrees, from direct discourse against a foreign nation in Zech. 9:1 to direct affirmation of Israel in Mal. 1:1–5.

The introductory formula in Mal. 1:1 differs from both its predecessors (Zech. 9:1 and 12:1) in more than just the use of prepositions.¹ Malachi 1:1 includes information about the method by means of which this oracle has been transmitted to Israel. It came bĕyad mal’ākô, “through his messenger.” We encounter again a personage with the same title as the individual present in the visions of Zechariah 1–8: the divine messenger. However, in Mal. 1:1 the messenger does not stand in dialogue with a human prophet. Instead, the messenger functions as herald of the deity to the nation, or more particularly, to the second temple Judean community, which is here labeled Israel.

The phrase bĕyad, “through,” is used elsewhere in the prophetic corpus to refer to prophetic intermediation, “through Jeremiah the prophet” (Jer. 50:1), and “through Haggai the prophet” (Hag. 1:1), and “through Isaiah son of Amoz” (Isa. 1:1).² As a result, there is prima facie reason to view the messenger here as a human figure. During the early Persian period, another Yahwistic author used the language of “messenger” to refer to prophets (2 Chron. 36:15). The language of bĕyad, “through,” places this discourse firmly within the ambit of prophetic authority.³

With such a superscription, this collection is provided with a different sort of authority than are the initial two maś’ôt. The two foregoing collections were anonymous, achieving their “prophetic” authority through the name of Zechariah, the putative author of the earlier prophetic book to which they had been appended. Not so with Malachi, for in this case an unnamed figure is viewed as the vehicle by means of which these speeches had been conveyed and, presumably, preserved. The existence of such an individual explains why a name for him, Malachi, evolved over time and why these verses were attributed to him as a separate prophetic book. However, in their current canonical setting these chapters are related to the world of Zechariah ben Berechiah. For in that corpus there was also a messenger, “the angel of the Lord” (e.g., Zech. 1:1–12).

Perhaps it is enough to claim that the attribution of this collection to “his messenger” represents a move beyond the anonymity of typical deutero-prophetic collections and toward the regular pseudonymity of apocalyptic literature. By including “his messenger” in the booklet’s introduction, the author/editor has invested the collection with an authority different from the earlier maś’sôt, where the authority is related to the visions of Zechariah I. Here the authority resonates, albeit in an ambigious way, with the powerful “messenger” depicted in Malachi 3.

Malachi 1:2–5

The God who loves and hates

1:2“I love you,”^a

says Yahweh.

“And yet you say, ‘How do you love us?’

Is not Esau the brother of Jacob?”

says Yahweh.

“Although I truly love Jacob,

3I hate Esau.

I have made desolate his hills,

and have given over his inheritance to desert jackals.^b

4If Edom says,^c ‘We are broken,

but we will build again out of the ruins,’

Thus says Yahweh of Hosts:

They may build, but I will destroy.

They will be called ‘an evil territory,’

the people whom Yahweh has cursed forever.

5Your own eyes will see; you will proclaim,

‘Yahweh is great beyond the borders of Israel.’”

a. See GKC, 106g for a discussion of the qatal form used to describe present tense of affections and states of mind; similarly Rudolph, Maleachi, 252–53. Cf. Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, 193.

b. For MT lĕtannôt, some have proposed a verb, nātattî, i.e., “I have made his inheritance a wilderness.” Others have taken that form as a plural construct noun, lin’ôt, i.e., “his inheritance to desert dwellings,” and in so doing have construed the consonants It as a dittography from the end of the previous word, naḥălātô. Most LXX manuscripts read eis domata erēmou, “into dwellings of the wilderness.” This reading presupposes a Hebrew form nĕ’ôt, and is adopted by, among others, REB and JPS. Cf. A. von Bulmerincq, Der Ausspruch über Edom im Buche Maleachi, Dorpat, 1906, 10–11.

c. Edom is normally a masculine noun, yet here it is linked to a feminine verb.

[1:2–5] That Yahweh should announce his love for Israel is, perhaps, not unusual (cf. Hos. 11:1, “when Israel was a child, I loved him”). A similar claim may be found in Deut. 7:8, “but it is because Yahweh loves you and is keeping the oath which he swore to your fathers.…” The first hallmark of this claim is that Yahweh addresses Israel directly in the second person. At the outset, the discourse involves “you,” not the less direct speech about Jacob and Esau.⁴ Unusual is the direct challenge by an indefinite voice, “How do you love us?” Such a contestive tone might have seemed apt immediately after the defeat of Jerusalem in 587 or during the Babylonian exile, but not during the early part of the fifth century B.C.E.

This challenge to Yahweh’s affirmation of his love raises a number of questions, one of which is form-critical. What sort of conversation is going on? More particularly, do vv. 2–5 comprise a particular form of discourse? Here, and elsewhere, the book of Malachi incorporates direct speech and dialogue that is often confrontational. Whether such dialogue entails one specific Gattung is the central issue for debate. Since Mal. 1:2–5 really involves three parties in direct speech—Yahweh (1:2a, c, 3, 4b, 5a), Israel (1:2b, 5b), and Edom (1:4a)—it does not seem appropriate to describe the unit as a disputation, which typically presumes that there is an argument between only two parties. This fact, plus the positive affirmation that Yahweh elicits from Israel, constrains one to use a more general formal description than “disputation” to describe this rhetorical unit, which is a diatribe-like construction (see Introduction above).

Israel as a whole appears to respond to this asseveration of love by the deity. The verb, “you say,” is second masculine plural in form just as is the pronominal object suffix, “I love you.” Conversation occurs between two related partners.

The vocabulary used in this interchange between Yahweh and Israel points directly to the covenant relationship. The term “love” may, of course, refer to deep feelings. However, it may also describe the covenant relationship that existed between Yahweh and Israel, as it does in Deuteronomy.⁵ Moreover, this notion expresses aspects of “love” that are peculiar to the covenant idiom, for example, the idea that love may be commanded (Deut. 6:5). Hence, Yahweh’s proclamation to Israel not only bears rich emotional connotations but means as well that the covenant between Yahweh and his people remains in force. Therefore, when Israel questions or challenges Yahweh by asking, “How do you love us?” the question could be rephrased, “What demonstrable evidence may be offered to show that Yahweh is acting as if a covenant relationship between the deity and Israel is still in force?”

Yahweh initially responds to Israel’s interrogative challenge with another question. (An indicative claim follows but only after the formulaic “saying of Yahweh,” which distinguishes a question from the ensuing asseveration.) Moreover, there is a shift in Yahweh’s language away from direct discourse—“you”—to third-person reference. Finally, Israel is personified with the name Jacob. The presence of a rhetorical question, “Is not Esau the brother of Jacob?” implies dialogue, albeit increasingly impersonal, between Yahweh and “Jacob.”

How does Yahweh choose to prove his love for Israel and so to demonstrate that the covenant is still in force? He begins to discuss international relations by using ancestral kinship language. The relationship between Esau and Jacob, the eponyms for Edom and Israel respectively, provides the takeoff point both for Yahweh’s question and answer. Moreover, the rhetorical question elicits the expected answer. If Israel knew one thing about Esau, it is that he was Jacob’s brother. Jacob tricked Esau out of his birthright and his proper place in the system of primogeniture. It is one thing for humans—Jacob and Rebekah—to undertake such trickery and deception; it is quite another for the deity to cooperate. Yet it is precisely such cooperation in this tu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Select Bibliography
• Introduction
• Zechariah 9–11 The First “Oracle”
• Zechariah 12–14 The Second “Oracle”
• Malachi The Third “Oracle”